September-October 2016 MILITARY REVIEW 102 Training for Decisive Action Maj. Will Shoemate, U.S. Army Maj. Benjamin Jensen, U.S. Army I n traditional Western military thought, decisive aion refers to massing combat power at the right place and time for achieving success. e 1910 Field Service Regulations of the United States Army, the doctrine of its day, states, “decisive results are obtained only by the offensive,” and commanders will “make a power- ful effort at the decisive point.” 1 A decisive aion would be the offensive effort— the main aack— that would win the bale. A deci- sive point would be understood as the place and time the main aack would oc- cur. Commanders seized the initiative and sought out a decisive bale that would destroy their enemy’s ability to resist. In contemporary joint doctrine, a decisive point is “a geographic place, key event, critical factor, or function that, when aed upon, allows commanders to gain a marked advantage over an adversary or contribute mate- rially to achieving success.” 2 While this construct allows for more than combat operations at ecific geographic locations, modern planners tend to use the idea of deci- sive points traditionally, to map lines of operation that synchronize aions. In 2012, Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 3-0, Unified Land Operations, modified the foundational concept of what it means to be decisive in modern war. e Army now defines decisive aion not as the massing of offensive combat power at the right place and time but as “the continuous, simultaneous combina- tions of offensive, defensive, and stability or defense sup- port of civil authorities tasks.” 3 Simultaneous combinations of tasks reflect a broader under- standing of modern op- erations, which are not a sequence of set-piece linear bales with clear termination criteria. Instead, modern war- fare involves flowing combinations of com- bined arms maneuver and wide area security against amorphous threats. erefore, Army exercises need to prepare agile and adaptive leaders capable of combining offensive, defensive, and stability tasks successfully. is article discusses ways the Army can provide training that ensures units are ready to conduct unified land operations through decisive aion. e Right Operational Framework for Combining Tasks Army unit leaders start by describing opera- tions in terms of time, space, purpose, and resourc- es. Consistent with Army operational doctrine and the “FORSCOM Command Training Guidance (CTG)—Fiscal Year 2016,” Army combat training Bradley Fighting Vehicles of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, from Fort Hood, Texas, move out for the live-fire portion of their decisive action training in January 2013 at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California. (Photo by David Crozier, NCO Journal)
Transcript
September-October 2016 MILITARY REVIEW102
Training for Decisive ActionMaj. Will Shoemate, U.S. ArmyMaj. Benjamin Jensen, U.S. Army
In traditional Western military thought, decisive action refers to massing combat power at the right place and time for achieving success. The 1910 Field
Service Regulations of the United States Army, the doctrine of its day, states, “decisive results are obtained only by the offensive,” and commanders will “make a power-ful effort at the decisive point.”1
A decisive action would be the offensive effort—the main attack—that would win the battle. A deci-sive point would be understood as the place and time the main attack would oc-cur. Commanders seized the initiative and sought out a decisive battle that would destroy their enemy’s ability to resist.
In contemporary joint doctrine, a decisive point is “a geographic place, key event, critical factor, or function that, when acted upon, allows commanders to gain a marked advantage over an adversary or contribute mate-rially to achieving success.”2 While this construct allows for more than combat operations at specific geographic locations, modern planners tend to use the idea of deci-sive points traditionally, to map lines of operation that synchronize actions.
In 2012, Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 3-0, Unified Land Operations, modified the
foundational concept of what it means to be decisive in modern war. The Army now defines decisive action not as the massing of offensive combat power at the right place and time but as “the continuous, simultaneous combina-tions of offensive, defensive, and stability or defense sup-
port of civil authorities tasks.”3 Simultaneous combinations of tasks reflect a broader under-standing of modern op-erations, which are not a sequence of set-piece linear battles with clear termination criteria. Instead, modern war-fare involves flowing combinations of com-bined arms maneuver and wide area security against amorphous threats. Therefore, Army exercises need to
prepare agile and adaptive leaders capable of combining offensive, defensive, and stability tasks successfully.
This article discusses ways the Army can provide training that ensures units are ready to conduct unified land operations through decisive action.
The Right Operational Framework for Combining Tasks
Army unit leaders start by describing opera-tions in terms of time, space, purpose, and resourc-es. Consistent with Army operational doctrine and the “FORSCOM Command Training Guidance (CTG)—Fiscal Year 2016,” Army combat training
Bradley Fighting Vehicles of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, from Fort Hood, Texas, move out for the live-fire portion of their decisive action training in January 2013 at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California. (Photo by David Crozier, NCO Journal)
103MILITARY REVIEW September-October 2016
DECISIVE ACTION
centers (CTCs) are using the “Decisive Action Training Environment” (sometimes known as DATE) to replicate complex operating environments involv-ing high-intensity conflict and hybrid threats.4 This program offers complex, realistic training scenarios that require brigade combat teams (BCTs) to integrate limited resources such as combined arms battalions, aviation, information collection, information opera-tions, and engineers.5 In particular, a BCT executing an attack must ensure the integration of key enablers to identify disruption zones and main defensive belts in order to array forces for relative advantage. A BCT must synchronize and integrate information collection and joint fires to attrit an enemy’s ability to increase its defensive posture.
Simultaneous to the integration of key enablers in support of the attack, a BCT also must execute of-fensive or defensive tasks along with stability tasks to secure the populace. The simultaneity of these tasks is
essential for sustained situational awareness and shared understanding of the environment.
I (contributing author William Shoemate) served as an observer at the Army National Training Center (NTC) from June 2014 to July 2015. During my experience gained over ten training rotations, I found that units applying the deep-close-security operational framework conducted decisive action more effectively during training. Army doctrine encourages leaders to establish an operational framework for each operation but does not dictate a specific framework. ADRP 3-0 suggests three: deep-close-security, decisive-shaping-sustaining, and main and supporting efforts.6
In a deep-close-security operational framework, commanders usually articulate their vision in terms of the terrain and the sequence of events. They plan actions based on deterring the commitment of uncom-mitted forces while focusing on speed and mobility to
Soldiers of the 173rd Cavalry Airborne Reconnaissance Squadron from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, meet at a rally point after parachuting into the Urban Operations Complex in the Nevada Test and Training Range, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, 18 November 2009. The soldiers are part of the biannual U.S. Air Force Weapons School Mobility Air Forces Exercise, which provides realistic training for air combat forces, air mobility forces, and U.S. Army personnel. (Photo by Michael R. Holzworth, U.S. Air Force)
September-October 2016 MILITARY REVIEW104
rapidly overwhelm the enemy in a critical place and time to exploit the initiative.
In a decisive-shaping-sustaining framework, they visualize a focal point—a decisive operation—that will determine the outcome. They plan based on a grand conceptualization that focuses resources on a singular operation that accomplishes the mission.
In a main-and-sup-porting-efforts framework, they prioritize the tasks of subordinate units based on capabil-ities. The main-and-sup-porting-efforts framework can comple-ment other frameworks.7
In the training events I observed at the NTC, when BCT leaders conceptualized engagements as deep-close-security, they were more likely to inte-grate enablers to attrit enemy forces early in the fight, while simultaneously focusing stability tasks across the area of operations to complement their ability to execute core competencies of combined arms maneu-ver and wide area security.
In all cases, conducting wide area security is es-sential for sustaining relative advantage and retaining initiative. Wide area security is “the application of the elements of combat power in unified action to protect populations, forces, infrastructure, and activities; to deny the enemy positions of advantage; and to consol-idate gains in order to retain the initiative.”8 Activities such as protecting populations and infrastructure, and consolidating gains, imply stability tasks.
For example, during rotation 15-01 at the NTC, a BCT was challenged throughout to ensure relative advantage through simultaneity of operations. To leverage opportunities to employ limited resources,
the unit’s leaders continuously assessed the operating environment. They developed a shared understanding across the BCT, which allowed for timely decisions to sustain a relative advantage. The significance of this training was that any BCT would need to synchronize and execute wide area security while deterring the
commitment of uncom-mitted forces through joint fires and information collection.
During three train-ing rota-tions from September to November 2014, I ob-served that BCTs em-ploying the decisive-shap-ing-sustaining operational
framework limited their ability to analyze and assess operations in support of wide area security. The doc-trinal language describing this framework, indicative of the earlier meaning of the word decisive, led staffs to only think of one decisive battle as opposed to com-bining effects. For example, during rotation 14-08, the BCT restricted its capability by focusing resources on the decisive operation. This allowed enemy forces to commit overwhelming combat power at their desig-nated place and time to sustain a position of relative advantage. The BCT’s framework for conceptualizing and integrating resources to apply overwhelming combat power at a specific place and time was degrad-ed based on its inability to attrit enemy forces early.
Historical Examples of Forces Combining Tasks in Operations
Coalition operations in Tal Afar, 2005, and in Sadr City, 2008, are examples of how U.S forces and coalition partners conducted operations in a manner consistent with the 2012 decisive-action operational
Soldiers detach concrete barriers, also known as “T-Walls,” from a crane during an effort to im-prove security in the southern portion of the Sadr City district of Baghdad on 3 May 2008. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Army)
105MILITARY REVIEW September-October 2016
DECISIVE ACTION
concept. The 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment, commanded by then Col. H.R. McMaster, employed combined arms maneuver and wide area security
for persistent relative advantage at echelon.9 In order to enable offensive operations within the city, the 3rd Armored Cavalry and Iraqi forces isolated enemy strong points through simultaneous offensive, defensive, and stability operations. Coalition forces mobilized Iraqi elements within the city to establish an inner and outer cordon. This task, secure-to-isolate, was supported through con-tinuous area reconnais-sance. Simultaneously, coalition forces made inroads with the local populace through repair-ing critical infrastructure and enabling freedom of maneuver around the city for commerce.
The 3rd Armored Calvary integrated joint fires and intelligence collection assets to close with the isolated enemy forces. They showed that a unit’s ability to integrate joint fires and information collection assets to find, fix, and finish enemy forces is a key to successful op-erations. In Tal Afar, successful management of transitions and contin-uous enabler integration led to success.
Similar to Tal Afar, the 2008 battle for Sadr City demonstrated that simultaneous execution of offensive, defensive, and stability tasks can lead to successful operations.10
U.S. soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division, conduct a combat patrol with Iraqi policemen during Operation Iraqi Freedom in Tal Afar, Iraq, 29 April 2006. (Photo by Staff Sgt. Aaron Allmon, U.S. Air Force)
September-October 2016 MILITARY REVIEW106
The integration of enablers by 4th Infantry Division and coalition forces, from joint fires to information collection assets, shaped the operating environment and created multiple dilemmas for the dominant in-surgent force, Jaish al Mahdi. In Sadr City, coalition forces conducted wide area security through ground maneuver, while engineers, protected by snipers, con-structed a barrier to secure the population by isolat-ing malign elements. Simultaneously, coalition special operations forces conducted raids against high-value individuals, while attack aviation interdicted enemy rocket teams.
The integration of enablers by coalition forces in Sadr City in 2008 was strikingly similar to CTC activ-ities by the most successful BCTs I observed. Success in both training exercises and operations appears to hinge on the ability of friendly forces to transition rapidly between offensive, defensive, and stability tasks while further enabling mission command at every echelon. In Sadr City, this was achieved through
the execution of combined arms maneuver and wide area security to isolate the enemy and seize the ini-tiative. The elements of this version of decisive action were applied consistently throughout the fight.
The U.S. Army is not the only military force adopt-ing simultaneous combinations of offensive, defensive, and stability tasks. For example, in the 2006 war with Israel, Hezbollah employed a sophisticated military strategy that integrated attritional guerilla warfare in the defense, offensive rocket fire, and stability opera-tions in areas it controlled.11 Hezbollah used unmanned aerial vehicles and rockets supplied by Iran in its equivalent of asymmetric main and deep fights.12 The unmanned aerial vehicles enabled tactical reconnais-sance and antiarmor ambushes, while the rockets at-tacked population centers in an effort to pressure Israel to withdraw. According to scholar Iver Gabrielsen in “The Evolution of Hezbollah’s Strategy and Military Performance, 1982–2006,” its fighters employed thir-teen principles of warfare that emphasized aspects of
U.S. Army soldiers from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and Iraqi soldiers cross an intersection during a routine security patrol in downtown Tal Afar, Iraq, on 11 September 2005. The purpose of the patrols was to disrupt insurgent safe havens and to clear weapons caches in the area of operations. (Photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Alan D. Monyelle, U.S. Navy)
107MILITARY REVIEW September-October 2016
DECISIVE ACTION
stability operations. For example, principles related to shaping civil conditions were, “The media has innu-merable guns …. Use them in the battle!” and “The population is the treasure—nurture it!”13
During the Crimea and Donbass campaigns, the Russian mili-tary employed the Gerasimov doctrine. It calls for “the broad use of political, economic, informational, humanitarian, and other non-military mea-sures applied in coordination with the pro-test potential of the population … to create a perma-nently operating front through the entire territory of the enemy state.”14 This approach clearly seeks relative advantages through combining offensive, defensive, and stability tasks.15
In Crimea, Russian forces used special operators and proxies to seize the initiative by combining propa-ganda to win over ethnic Russians while simultane-ously using covert elements to seize key terrain such as airfields and ports. These actions were supported by long-range rocket and artillery fire. Additionally, they protected their forces using a sophisticated integrated air-defense network while using threats of strategic escalation (such as nuclear posture changes and snap military exercises) to deny external support.
The Evolution of the Army’s Operational Concept
When the 2012 ADRP 3-0, Unified Land Operations, replaced full spectrum operations with de-cisive action, the Army began to guide commanders to use continuous and simultaneous combinations
of offensive, defensive, and stability tasks to seize the initiative and gain a position of relative advantage.16 In contrast to the traditional idea of decisive ac-
tions as massing combat power, the reason for a change in mean-ing of decisive was explained as follows:The op-erational concept ad-dresses more than combat between armed opponents. Army forces conduct operations amid popu-lations. This requires Army
forces to defeat the enemy and simulta-neously shape civil conditions. Offensive and defensive tasks defeat enemy forces whereas stability tasks shape civil condi-tions. Winning battles and engagements is important but alone may not be the most significant. Shaping civil conditions (in concert with civilian organizations, civ-il authorities, and multinational forces) often proves just as important to campaign success. In many joint operations, stability or defense support of civil authorities tasks often prove more important than offensive and defensive tasks.17
The need for operating forces to combine and synchronize a wide range of tasks has remained consistent from past to present and will continue into the future. Like most Western militaries, how-ever, the U.S. Army has a long tradition of defining decisive action as the application of superior fire-power or maneuver elements against an enemy at the optimal place and time. In the 1923 Field Service
An Israeli Merkava tank destroyed by the Hezbollah during its 2006 war with Israel. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
September-October 2016 MILITARY REVIEW108
Regulations, decisive action implied “the ability of the command to concentrate forces at decisive points.”18 In 1976, FM 100-5, Operations, stated the applica-tion of superior forces included fires. The manual told soldiers that, “decisive results require skillful concentration of firepower.”19
Starting with the introduction of “AirLand Battle” doctrine in 1982, the meaning of decisive started to expand in three significant ways. First, the doctrine, which called for using combat power to engage in deep strikes that destabilized the adversary, reintro-duced an emphasis on maneuver. Whereas the 1976 “Active Defense” doctrine focused on firepower and using suppression to enable movement in the close fight, AirLand Battle advocated using both fires and maneuver in the deep and close fights. According to the 1982 edition of FM 100-5, Operations, “the AirLand Battle will be dominated by the force that retains the initiative and, with deep attack and deci-sive maneuver, destroys its opponent’s ability to fight and organize in depth.”20
Second, AirLand Battle introduced the concept of battlefield dynamics, and a broader understanding of combat power and the intangible factors that would determine outcomes in war. The manual defined combat power by its elements: “maneuver, firepower, protection, and leadership.”21 Each of these elements of military power had a role in helping commanders marshal the right mix of forces at the decisive point. Additionally, the manual referred to the range of in-tangibles shaping outcomes as the dynamics of battle. According to the manual, “force ratios and the effects of fire and maneuver are significant in deciding battles; however, a number of intangible factors often predom-inate, [including the] state of training, troop motiva-tion, leader skill, firmness of purpose, and boldness—the abilities to perceive opportunities, to think rapidly, to communicate clearly, and to act decisively.”22
Whereas the 1982 AirLand Battle doctrine extended the battlefield and the idea of what con-stituted combat power, in 1986, Army operational doctrine expanded the understanding of the range of battlefields. The 1986 edition of FM 100-5 ex-plained, “guerrillas, special operations forces, and
terrorists will seek to avoid set-piece battles and to strike at scattered points of vulnerability.”23 The 1986 manual stressed adapting AirLand Battle to contingencies short of major theater war.
Despite this broader focus, the 1986 manual still stressed deep attack against enemy high-value targets as decisive points on the modern battlefield. In fact, in the 1986 edition, the doctrine called for thinking across multiple battlefields and anticipating adversary adapta-tion. The manual also addressed the potential of preci-sion munitions, stating, “potent ground and air systems, complemented by closely coordinated precision-guided munitions, will be able to concentrate enormous com-bat power, especially at decisive points.”24
From Effective Doctrine to Effective Training
The word decisive has evolved beyond its twen-tieth century roots. Today, a single, linear decisive battle is likely to be elusive. Forces often conduct operations between war and peace as, for exam-ple, in urban areas that do not lend themselves to massing combat power against a single, geographic decisive point. The unit able to simultaneously and continuously combine offensive, defensive, and stability tasks, as captured in Army doctrine, will be the one most able to achieve a position of relative advantage against an enemy. The operational frame-work, or frameworks, a commander selects—such as deep-close-security, decisive-shaping-sustaining, main and supporting efforts—greatly influences how the commander arranges the mix of offensive, defensive, and stability tasks. Every commander needs to arrange tasks in the way that best leverages combined arms maneuver and wide area security.
To enhance readiness, units need time and space for realistic home-station training. Training should em-phasize individual-to-collective training on decisive-ac-tion skill sets, especially long-range fires, reconnais-sance, security, and enabler integration. Additionally, staff exercises, consistent with the CTC model, need to be shaped to prepare agile and adaptive leaders capable of combining offensive, defensive, and stability tasks in a deep-close-security framework.
109MILITARY REVIEW September-October 2016
DECISIVE ACTION
Notes1. Field Service Regulations of the United States Army (Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office [GPO], 1910), 157 and 160, obsolete, accessed 6 May 2016, http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll9/id/900.
3. Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 3-0, Unified Land Operations (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 2012), GL-2.
4. Department of the Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Forces Command [FORSCOM], Memorandum for Commanders, Major Subordinate Commands/Units Reporting Directly to FORSCOM, Army National Guard Bureau, Office, Chief Army Reserve and Army Service Component Commands, “FORSCOM Command Training Guidance (CTG)—Fiscal Year 2016,” 19 October 2015, accessed 5 May 2016, https://fce.forscom.army.mil/FC-DocMgmt/SiteAssets/Default.aspx (login required), 12.
5. For an overview of training at the U.S. Army National Train-ing Center, see Operations Group, U.S. Army National Training Center, Training for Decisive Action: Stories of Mission Command (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2014) accessed 12 July 2016, http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/TrainingForDecisiveAction.pdf.
6. ADRP 3-0, 1-10–1-12.7. Ibid.8. Army Doctrine Publication 3-0, Unified Land Operations
(Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, October 2011), GL-7.9. George Packer, “The Lesson of Tal Afar: Is it Too Late for the
Administration to Correct Its Course?” The New Yorker online, 10 April 2006, accessed 12 July 2016, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/04/10/the-lesson-of-tal-afar.
10. David E. Johnson, M. Wade Markel, and Brian Shannon, “The 2008 Battle of Sadr City” (occasional paper, RAND Corpora-tion, 2011).
11. Iver Gabrielsen “The Evolution of Hezbollah’s Strategy and Military Performance, 1982–2006” Small Wars & Insurgencies 25, no. 2 ( June 2014), doi:10.1080/09592318.2014.903636.
12. Marc Lindemann, “Laboratory of Asymmetry: The 2006 Lebanon War and the Evolution of Iranian Ground Tactics,” Military Review 90, no. 3 (May-June 2010).
13. Gabrielsen, “The Evolution of Hezbollah’s Strategy and Military Performance,” 258.
14. Valery Gersimov, “The Science of Military Prediction,” Military–Industrial Kurier, 27 February 2013, as quoted and translated in Robert Coalson, “Top Russian General Lays Bare Putin’s Plan for Ukraine,” The World Post online, 2 September 2014, accessed 5 May 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-coalson/valery-gerasimov-putin-ukraine_b_5748480.html.
15. For an overview of the campaign in Crimea, see Kristin Ven Bruusgaard, “Crimea and Russia’s Strategic Overhaul,” Param-eters 44, no. 3, (Autumn 2013).
16. ADRP 3-0, 2-2–2-6.17. Ibid., 2-3.18. Field Service Regulations, United States Army: 1910 (Wash-
19. Field Manual (FM) 100-5, Operations (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 1976), 3-5, obsolete, accessed 15 November 2015 http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll9/id/42.
20. FM 100-5, Operations (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 1982), obsolete, 1-5.
21. Ibid., 2-4.22. Ibid.23. FM 100-5, Operations (Washington: Department of the
Army, 1986), obsolete, 3.24. Ibid.
Biographies Maj. William H. Shoemate, U.S. Army engineer, is the executive officer for the Asymmetric Warfare Group. He holds a BA from University of the Ozarks and an MS from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. He has commanded in the 2nd Infantry Division and the Asymmetric Warfare Group. From 2014–2015, he was an observer controller/trainer at the National Training Center.
Maj. Benjamin M. Jensen, U.S. Army Reserve, is a military fellow in the Chief of Staff of the Army Strategic Studies Group. He holds a BA from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, an MS from the National Intelligence University, and an MA and a PhD from the American University, School of International Service. He has commanded in the 629th and 323rd Military Intelligence Battalions and served in joint intelligence billets for United States European Command. He is an academic chair at the Marine Corps University and a scholar-in-residence at American University, School of International Service, Washington, D.C.
